>>12099552i wonder about this
>>12100809it literally stems from what you just described. cute is a very short bridge to sexy. for a lot of people, cute is more attractive than over-the-top sexy, ex: my gf wears lingerie, kinda meh, but she wears some cute outfit, I'm all over her. same reason asian girls go for the whole kawaii over-the-top cutesy look, it ticks a lot of boxes for some dudes more than leather/lace/etc. for me personally I've figured out what it is - less revealing outfits are often sexier than slutty outfits because it leaves stuff to the imagination and it's nore playful, kinda like wanting what you can't have or rather, what doesn't come easily.
personally, most of my atypical interests were founded long before I was even aware of sex, yet they kinda ticked the same boxes of underlying "arousal" in that I (privately) obsessed over certain things as a kid and never questioned why when I got older. I can point to at least one event early in childhood that may have triggered it (NOT at all sexual, strictly related to the paraphilia, and occured with a person around my age at the time) but I'll never know whether I engaged in this event out of curiosity, boredom, or simple moth-to-a-flame attraction to stimuli. It's a complicated subject, I think "crossed wires" is an oversimplification using laymen terms that doesn't adequately describe the process. As
>>12099534 mentions, it is a decidedly un-academic subject and very unfashionable (some might say uncouth) for research.
